地方政府应该被纳入宪法吗?美国和巴西最高法院关于兼并法推理的比较分析

Carolina Arlota
{"title":"地方政府应该被纳入宪法吗?美国和巴西最高法院关于兼并法推理的比较分析","authors":"Carolina Arlota","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Annexation of local governments is a contentious topic. Litigation of annexation often addresses important constitutional provisions, such as property rights, federalism, limitations to police powers, equality and, more specifically, the Voting Rights Act. The United States Constitution is famously silent about local governments. In light of this omission and considering individual constitutional rights, would it make a difference to have local governments in the constitutional text? And to whom would it matter the most? This research developed an original dataset to answer those questions. This article focuses on annexation as proxy for local powers, and it compares the U.S. federalism scheme with the Brazilian unprecedented experience of leveling local governments alongside the states and the federal union in the Constitution of 1988. This research is unique in its comparison of the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.S.C.) and its Brazilian counterpart, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (S.T.F.), with regard to annexation laws. The main contributions of this study to the literature are straightforward. First, it advances the literature on constitutional design by focusing on local governments, instead of states and the federal union. Second, and related to such an advancement, this paper departs from traditional federalism comparisons which were restricted to developed countries. Third, this research provides evidence contradicting previous claims that the U.S. constitutional omission of local governments was a failure of constitutional design relating to future matters. In addition, this study analyzes the consequences of the Brazilian constitutional design. This article concludes that there is no evidence supporting the proposition that the inclusion of municipalities as federal actors is necessarily superior to the current comparative trend that uses the dual spheres system of the U.S. federalism as a paradigm. Therefore, this research leads to unexpected results and provides evidence that contradicts the understanding of the U.S. constitutional omission of local governments as a failure of constitutional design.","PeriodicalId":210701,"journal":{"name":"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Local Governments Be Included in the Constitution? A Comparative Analysis Between the U.S. and Brazilian Supreme Courts’ Reasoning Regarding Annexation Laws\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Arlota\",\"doi\":\"10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Annexation of local governments is a contentious topic. Litigation of annexation often addresses important constitutional provisions, such as property rights, federalism, limitations to police powers, equality and, more specifically, the Voting Rights Act. The United States Constitution is famously silent about local governments. In light of this omission and considering individual constitutional rights, would it make a difference to have local governments in the constitutional text? And to whom would it matter the most? This research developed an original dataset to answer those questions. This article focuses on annexation as proxy for local powers, and it compares the U.S. federalism scheme with the Brazilian unprecedented experience of leveling local governments alongside the states and the federal union in the Constitution of 1988. This research is unique in its comparison of the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.S.C.) and its Brazilian counterpart, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (S.T.F.), with regard to annexation laws. The main contributions of this study to the literature are straightforward. First, it advances the literature on constitutional design by focusing on local governments, instead of states and the federal union. Second, and related to such an advancement, this paper departs from traditional federalism comparisons which were restricted to developed countries. Third, this research provides evidence contradicting previous claims that the U.S. constitutional omission of local governments was a failure of constitutional design relating to future matters. In addition, this study analyzes the consequences of the Brazilian constitutional design. This article concludes that there is no evidence supporting the proposition that the inclusion of municipalities as federal actors is necessarily superior to the current comparative trend that uses the dual spheres system of the U.S. federalism as a paradigm. Therefore, this research leads to unexpected results and provides evidence that contradicts the understanding of the U.S. constitutional omission of local governments as a failure of constitutional design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":210701,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

兼并地方政府是一个有争议的话题。兼并诉讼往往涉及重要的宪法条款,如财产权、联邦制、对警察权力的限制、平等,更具体地说,是《选举权法》。众所周知,美国宪法对地方政府只字未提。考虑到这一点,并考虑到个人的宪法权利,在宪法文本中加入地方政府会有什么不同吗?这对谁最重要?本研究开发了一个原始数据集来回答这些问题。本文主要关注作为地方权力代理的兼并,并将美国的联邦制方案与巴西1988年宪法中史无前例的地方政府与州和联邦联盟并列的经验进行比较。这项研究的独特之处在于,它比较了美国最高法院(U.S.S.C.)和巴西联邦最高法院(S.T.F.)在并吞法方面的推理。这项研究对文献的主要贡献是直截了当的。首先,它通过关注地方政府,而不是州和联邦联盟,推动了宪法设计的文献。其次,与这一进步相关的是,本文脱离了传统的仅限于发达国家的联邦制比较。第三,本研究提供的证据反驳了先前的说法,即美国宪法对地方政府的遗漏是与未来事务有关的宪法设计的失败。此外,本研究还分析了巴西宪法设计的后果。本文的结论是,没有证据支持下述命题:将市政当局纳入联邦行为体必然优于当前以美国联邦制的双领域体系为范例的比较趋势。因此,本研究得出了意想不到的结果,并提供了证据,反驳了将美国宪法对地方政府的遗漏视为宪法设计失败的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should Local Governments Be Included in the Constitution? A Comparative Analysis Between the U.S. and Brazilian Supreme Courts’ Reasoning Regarding Annexation Laws
Annexation of local governments is a contentious topic. Litigation of annexation often addresses important constitutional provisions, such as property rights, federalism, limitations to police powers, equality and, more specifically, the Voting Rights Act. The United States Constitution is famously silent about local governments. In light of this omission and considering individual constitutional rights, would it make a difference to have local governments in the constitutional text? And to whom would it matter the most? This research developed an original dataset to answer those questions. This article focuses on annexation as proxy for local powers, and it compares the U.S. federalism scheme with the Brazilian unprecedented experience of leveling local governments alongside the states and the federal union in the Constitution of 1988. This research is unique in its comparison of the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.S.C.) and its Brazilian counterpart, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (S.T.F.), with regard to annexation laws. The main contributions of this study to the literature are straightforward. First, it advances the literature on constitutional design by focusing on local governments, instead of states and the federal union. Second, and related to such an advancement, this paper departs from traditional federalism comparisons which were restricted to developed countries. Third, this research provides evidence contradicting previous claims that the U.S. constitutional omission of local governments was a failure of constitutional design relating to future matters. In addition, this study analyzes the consequences of the Brazilian constitutional design. This article concludes that there is no evidence supporting the proposition that the inclusion of municipalities as federal actors is necessarily superior to the current comparative trend that uses the dual spheres system of the U.S. federalism as a paradigm. Therefore, this research leads to unexpected results and provides evidence that contradicts the understanding of the U.S. constitutional omission of local governments as a failure of constitutional design.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信